They are a bit slow to learn this fun a game stuff
It is either competitive insecurity on their part, or they are just that mentally soft
Republican Jewish Coalition Bars Ron Paul From Debate: âHeâs misguided and extremeâ
- Thread starter achilles28
- Start date
They are a bit slow to learn this fun a game stuff
It is either competitive insecurity on their part, or they are just that mentally soft
I'm assuming he's telling the truth and I offered an apology as per his request. I was not aware my comment hurt his feelings but after he asked for the apology that became more apparent. Still, he didn't actually say I hurt his feelings (i.e.: offended him) so I specified "if"...since implying his feelings were definitely hurt could also have been seen as an insult. If he wanted specific verbiage, then he should have made that clear.
Quote from RCG Trader:
They are a bit slow to learn this fun a game stuff
It is either competitive insecurity on their part, or they are just that mentally soft
I'm thinking its both. Wow. I've been insulted about a thousand times on this forum and I've only been a member since August. You don't see me whining for an apology.
I find this interesting. You stated you felt an apology was owed yet you've hurled insults, both at me and towards others, left right and sideways. Perhaps in your mind one insult is better or worse than another but that is entirely subjective and depends on the listener. At the end of the day, it's just words and they only have power if you ascribe power to them. A little word of advice...treat others the way you would want to be treated. If you insult people and attempt to get personal in order to get a reaction, don't be all shocked and shaken when they return the favor.
To continue...you hurled many insults my way during this thread...long before I ever returned the favor. Somehow I touched on a nerve and you feel that this "mega" insult trumps all your insults. Your insults aren't really insults but mine are...is that how this works? This is the internet. Moreover, this is a political forum with a disclaimer that basically says, if you are easily offended, seek your entertainment elsewhere. For someone who claims to be a combat vet, you seem very thin skinned.
And finally, Awlaki was a citizen and no matter what he did, according to the Constitution, the document you say you swore to support and defend, he was still afforded due process. The Constitution tells us exactly what to do in the event of treason. Since he was in another country, we could have gone through the motions of a trial in absentia but that would have at least preserved the rule of law. Yet no evidence was ever presented to a judge. Was he a terrorist? Probably, whatever that means these days...but that does not cancel out the necessity of due process.
By allowing due process to fall by the wayside in this case, it will be easier to justify allowing it to fall by the wayside in future cases...much like the Patriot Act was billed as only to be used against terrorists. Now we see it is primarily used in drug cases. All this has been is an end run around all of our Constitutional protections, and for someone who claims to have taken the oath to support and defend that document, you seem awfully keen to forget it exists.
